Unmarried couples in Poland = pathology

Where you in the States when Lee Marvin the actor was sued by his live-in for alimony when he dumped her? The courts ruled that his live-in was a legitimate marriage and he owed the money. He owed her financial support.

Marriage prevents men from impregnating women and than leaving them destitute.

Chicago Pollock
I can understand law requiring that both parents support the child.
But without children, I don't think either party should pay alimony. I know that many women forgo their careers during marriage, but if they do it willingly, then they should consider that they are taking a gamble.

On the other hand, it's a relatively new phenomena that people are marrying out of love for one another.Marriage is an archaic carryover from a time when such contracts were needed for society at the time.

To all, this thread has been cleaned because some members can't stop using personal insults. Please refrain from doing so as you will risk an instant suspension next time.

F-Stop what the law says, "it isn't a gamble". Both parties have contractual obligations.


Marriage is not archaic. Everyone is not a type "A" personality well salaried professional.

government and law is about preventing the strong from taking advantage of the weak. Without the law society would revert to the Middle Ages where might meant right. And we'd have a bunch of fiefdoms with private armies running around and ruling with the sword.

Are they? I can think of a few families which meet those descriptions and which are married. I can also think of a few families where the father just ran like a hae and left the single mother to raise the kid... and they are very happy, well-balanced, loved kids.

Of course, there are well known examples of loving familes in modern times; long term and married:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case
suite101/content/polish-fritzl-sentenced-to-10-years-in-jail-a198521

Are you stupid or something? Of course not.

A good question? Who is doing all these things that you speak of?

Also ask who preaches "morality" and then turns a blind eye to its own members doing such things?

Rules are invented to be broken! Marriage was invented to keep society working - not to make people perfect. Nobody in their right mind would try to deny that broken families can produce well-rounded children or vice versa.

HOWEVER, from the point of view of society functioning properly divorce has to be kept to a minimum, because dysfunctional homes have a greater tendency to produce dysfunctional children and a whole host of related nastiness.

So, what are we discussing here? Morality? That's a personal thing - though I'm Christian. No, I take the moral stance that I want:

i) A greater chance of hapiness for children
ii) Higher academic success by children
iii) Less anti-social behaviour

Children born in wedlock have a better chance of a happy life. So, why not go for the best option?

tbo.com/content/2010/apr/21/211620/homeless-mother-15-says-she-needs-help-justice/
mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/09man_who_fathered_23_children_w.html

Children born to loving responsible parents have a better chance at a happy life, regardless of marital status. I think cause and effect might be getting mixed up.

Not at all - simple statistics borne out time and again.

Statistically, married couples have a better chance of staying together. Statistically, children from married parents have better chances of positive outcomes on various levels.

Naturally, statistics are not individual cases - ask any cancer sufferer.

Yup, simple statistics. Loving and responsible parents seem to produce better adjusted children than just those who are married. We could take a look at something like Scandinavian countries vs. say the Caribbean. I don't think that it's as easy as saying that marriage equals better chances of having a well adjusted kid.

If marriage is just a scrap of paper (as some people claim), then why is it that the longest-lasting marriages are those concldued in a Catholic church, next in a Protesant church, ahead of those concldued in court (at a registrar's office). Far less permanent are cohabitational arrangements. There must be some magic in that sacrament or (in civil marriages) scrap of paper that helps keep things together.

Although I haven't seen any information on this, I presume Jewish marriages concluded before a rabbi are also rather permanent, maybe even more so than Catholic ones. The least permanent of all are homosexual households.

the most permanent arrangements are between two people that want to be together. Marriage might be a result of their commitment, not the cause.

Yes. All of which seems to fly in the face of the anti-marriage folks.

Marriage is the commitment. All you have is a relationship without it. A marriage is permanent (or at least should be- civil law has destroyed what was once a permanent commitment) commitment or bond between two people. Granted in more archaic times this was not the case but at one time women were considered property as well- should we turn back the clock?

A relationship has no boundries accept those proposed by both parties and hopefully both will agree to them.

Today's society preaches not getting married too young- that one should establish oneself before getting married....this is a mistake. The younger you are the easier it is to adapt to any situation. The older you are the harder it will be to find someone compatable with you.

markskibniewski
I think marriage is a sign distrust: "I love you honey, but do sign here. Also, this way, if you ever stop loving me, you'll have a hell of a time getting away."

I had a 10 year relationship that had everything but the legal paper. Boy was I glad it didn't when I went back to school and he decided that drinking solved all of his problems!

f stop, apparently if you were married, you would have worked through your issues...

On a side note, wonder what the statistics are for domestic violence in married and non married couples...

you really think so?? A guy that can't handle his woman bringing more money and having a carrer would have been helped by a legal paper?

from what I've read in this thread, apparently...

...one a side note, I can handle a sugarmomma :)

and how do you know that? would it have a happy ending, huh?
f stop is better off without some drunk loser...
everything happens for a reason...

Naw, surely they would have worked through it. I mean a quick visit to the priest, maybe a bit of him going upside her head, but at least, they'd be married, right?

And also, I think because lawyers were not involved in our spit, we are able to still be friends.

nope :)

Not good for the unmarried cohabitants.


Stop being such a simpleton. Marriage represents a whole lot more than a mere 'legal paper'. Just like any legal association entered under contract which causes people to take that association much more seriously.

'Legal papers' elevate marriage from a casual relationship to a sanctified, legally binding union made all the more serious due to the committing legalities involved.

As what Mark said, marriage is also a state of mind...

I don't want to talk to you at all.

Is this what you said to the other person in your unsanctified disposable relationship?

i don't think it's any of your business :)

people, don't get personal and lets get back to the OP topic :)

According to Richard J. Gelles, a nationally renowned researcher, the rate of violence is more than doubled in unmarried than in married couples, which was 15 out of 100 couples.

Additonally, "domestic violence cases disproportionately involved unmarried couples with lower than average education. Most were minority or mixed racial (black male/white female) relationships. Assailants were likely to have had prior run-ins with police."

Last, but not least, women initiate domestic violence as frequently as men but men rarely report it.

Sure it is if she herself put it out here as fodder.